Muslim husbands with more than one wife to get extra benefits as ministers recognise polygamy

[Let not the Believers take the unbelievers as their patrons over against the Believers…] (Aal-'Imran 3: 28)

Pardon me, I think I am not understanding. Isn't a 'patron' someone who supports you? So, are you saying all the Muslim people who are on the dole
(as well as the 3 extra wives) ARE taking the "unbelievers" as patrons?

Yes but this countries like south America catholic rule onces the male is the head of the family, the woman will do as her husband tells her to do,
even if she is in a society that have freedom for women.

Many south American countries has embraced changes due to poverty but not all societies have.

If the husband doesn't want the wife to use contraceptives, she will obey.

The women rights benefits us in free society but no if you are under sharia law, the men rules over the women.

Originally posted by kangjia57
We get taught at home,mosque,people around that not to mix with non-muslims.They can never be our friends and it also states that in the Quran
itself.Plus if we mix than we will start becoming more liberal,lower our morals and degrade ourselves and loose our true identity.

That's funny... I was taught not to follow them when it's morally wrong. And you seem to be misinterpreting temptation (patronage) with being
friends.

On contraceptives, from your source:

“The preservation of the human species is unquestionably the primary objective of marriage, and such preservation of the species requires
continued reproduction. Accordingly, Islam encourages having many children and has blessed both male and female progeny. However, it allows the
Muslim to plan his family due to valid reasons and recognized necessities.

Well no - if you had posted a verse that said "do not mix with non muslims" I'd concede the point - but you didn't, you posted other things that
"scholars" and the like SAY means that - and it patently does NOT say that.

It's this twisting by man of what he THINKS god means that causes all the trouble.

Or do you think that god is fallible and his work needs to be checked and corrected?
Because that pretty much what you're supporting.

I see the U.K. as a good example of what happens when liberalism gets out of control. Considering that muslims have higher reproduction rates it
should only be time before the working class really takes the toll.

I think it would be pretty degrading to have to depend on people I hated to feed me.

This thread has been very enloghteing to me. I guess I didn't really know how people of ALL religions twist the words of their 'holy books' to fit
whatever THEY want. I honestly thought that was just something fundamentalist Christians did. (hehee)

That's funny... I was taught not to follow them when it's morally wrong. And you seem to be misinterpreting temptation (patronage) with being
friends.

I get taught that you follow the One you befriend. Its either they change you or you change them.

Okay, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on the point of befriending a non-Muslim here. I see both what I was taught and what you have been
though as equally valid. The difference is that what I was taught places faith in one's ability to tell right from wrong. What you were taught is a
more of a 'glass is half empty' take on things -- it assumes that one isn't able to tell right from wrong.

As for the bit about about contraception -- it doesn't invalidate what I said about it not being prohibited, and in the context in which the subject
it was brought up, it definitely isn't prohibited.

Again, from your source:

"The answer to question of contraception is found in the following three points:

1. Giving birth is the right of both husband and wife, and neither one of them has the right to deprive the other from doing so.

2. It is prohibited to take any measure, which would permanently prevent pregnancy, or cause infertility. It is permissible, however, to use temporary
birth control methods to delay pregnancy, as in the case of delaying pregnancy for the two years of breastfeeding the first child.

3. It is prohibited to use any birth control method which would harm the body, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: 'Do not
(impose) harm, nor (inflect) harm.'" [Quoted, with slight modification, from: Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com)]

So I stand by my assertion that Islam is flexible. It's only stiff and rigid if you fail to see the forest for the trees.

Then perhaps you should emigrate to a country where they have sharia law.

Amen to that. If following the strict islamic code is so important for somebody, even if it means breaking the law that most people live by in the UK,
they should seriously consider leaving. Sharia is incompatible with common law on a myriad of issues.

I honestly thought that was just something fundamentalist Christians did. (hehee)

Well the text of the Quran has stayed the same for 1400 years without being twisted.Even if you ask an Arab to what the Arabic text means than he will
also tell you the same.So no its not been twisted!
Thats why the Quran supercedes the bible and the torah.

I believe that intrepid asked this on another thread - what proof do you have that the koran has remained unchanged for 1400 years?

And also, despite the bible being changed, many parts of it are used wholesale in the koran - does this also make the koran flawed?

The Muslim false claim:

"In other words: two of the copies of the Qur’an which were originally prepared in the time of Caliph `Uthman, are still available to us today and
their texts and arrangement can be compared, by anyone who cares to, with any other copy of the Qur’an, be it in print or handwriting, from any
place or period of time. They will be found to be identical." (Von Denffer, Ulum al-Qur’an, p 64)

The truth:

Although Muslims proclaim they have a Koran that dates to the time of Muhammad, the Reality is different.

Originally posted by kangjia57
Well the text of the Quran has stayed the same for 1400 years without being twisted.

Man, you must be extremely old to be able to make that claim. Are you 1400 years old? Are you saying that the Qu'ran couldn't have been manipulated
over the times that encompass Crusades, Dark Ages, etc?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.